5.1 'Why?'
Through that has happened Miley says "I'm not a parent. I'm not a guardian. I'm not anything." True, she's not a parent or guardian. But what she does come off as is a symbol.
Whether the celebrity elite likes it or not they take on a role of symbolism in society. This is not just limited to Hollywood stars, but royalty, Presidents-and other politicians, buisness tycoons. When people are in the public eye they can become symbols to other people, whether the celebrities like it or not. Symbols of what however is a matter that can be put up for debate. But I think it was hoped that Miley would have become a symbol of what's 'good' in the world so people can believe that there is still good in the world.
Why do they need more symbols of good in the world, or why do people want celebrities to be symbols of 'good'? Apparently because the old symbols of what is good don't work anymore. Or they are considered cheesy, campy, or have had their time. In short, being good is considered 'uncool'. But if there is someone out there with the talent and potential to make being good cool again then maybe kids and people will start behaving and caring for one another again.
No party all the time chaos, order starts to be shown. Order and responsibility. Yes, I said 'order', because for some love may not as important as order. Love they believe can come later, especially as some believe it favors some and ignores others. And to some images of 'perfection' and 'order' may be seen as what is 'good'. So some ask, if not demand, a perfect image be shown-and maintained. Likely up to the point where the image can become real. Some would probably call adhering to that image 'moral reinforcement' as they allow the image to become everything giving someone something to believe in when the 'real' world fails them.
However, as I think of this my mind turns to other thoughts as well. If people conform to the demanded ideal are they still a person, or do they become the symbol to so great an extent they can't be anything else? And if they are a symbol, what are they a symbol of? Also, can we be who we are and want to be, or must we always do and be what society demands? And if we have to be what society demands should we expect any less out of Hollywood stars and the industry. Not to mention our other institutions like government and the financial sector?
Whether Miley likes it or not she has become a symbol. But instead of being a symbol of what is believed to be 'good' some are not sure what she is a symbol of. So they perceive the worst case scenario and tend to villify her, yet allow themselves to believe they are doing it for benign intentions.
Yes, I said benign intentions, for that is what the outraged may believe. They may believe they are looking to achieve a positive result. That they are doing the right thing to 'save her' from becoming the next Brittney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, or other child stars to the point where the outraged-and special interest groups-take on a whole new identity and term. A term some deem none too flattering, even though some that reflect this term believe they do the things they do, and say the things they say for the best of reasons.
That term? The morality police. They may have good intentions but as another old saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Meaning, the outraged may have meant things for the best. But they provided for the worst. That worst? The haters.
5.2 Haters
I look at the world right now and wonder if haters are not given a free pass today. Not just on the net, but the media as well.
I take a look at a lot of media stories that pop up on the net here and there. And quite a few of them can be brutal. And that brutality extends to YouTube postings and message board postings where the maliciousness is taken up several notches. And I wonder why? Why is this sort of behavior allowed to run free?
Some would probably answer 'Because of the first amendment'. The right of freedom of speech.' But is it really freedom of speech to verbally tear down a teenage girl or call her a slut? Or 'Slutty?' Are they really following the first amendment, or are they hiding behind it as they do their tear downs? And in the process violate the spirit of the first amendment?
Again, it has been said that 'Perception is reality', and on the media front I'm wondering if they do not agree with hater views as some articles seem to reflect the perceptions of the outraged and the haters. Do these supposed journalists see these perceptions as the truth? Or are they just looking for attention and magazine sales? I'm not sure I want to know the answer to this.
With the outraged I think they believe they are giving some 'tough love' to Miley that they may believe her parents don't seem to give her. They allow the 'slut' and 'slutty' names, and give her 'bad' role model status. A status they will continue to give her until Miley either quits or goes back to the 'good girl' image and ideal that is requested, expected, if not demanded of her. Then, in effect, renouncing anything that could be considered sexy, sexual, or slutty like one would renounce what could be deemed a pagan religion. Regardless of any questionable methods to attain this goal.
The haters however, those that actually hate Miley. Well, I think they just do it for a sense of fun. And if she cried tomorrow they'd just tear her down more. And if they know it's wrong they may not care. In looking at the haters I just think of a quote Alfred said in the movie The Dark Knight.
"Some just want to see the world burn." Another quote they may live by is "It's better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven".
But I don't think anyone wants the forest burned down do they?
Perhaps if people look at the world through smoke colored glasses instead of rose colored ones we can ask 'How do we lift the smoke?' Even if some don't want the smoke lifted, maybe it needs to be so light can be seen at the end of the tunnel.
As I look at this I think of statements Miley made in her book 'Miles to go' involving some 'mean girls' that bullied her and went out of their way to make her life miserable. Not to mention a parent being in the room that seemed to laugh about what was happening. She called it 'Operation:Make Miley Miserable.'
I'm wondering if the 'Operation' hasn't gone global, and under new management.
5.3 Malicious hate for the greater good?
Like I said the outraged (or morality police if you want to use that term), may believe that their actions are done for the greater good. And they probably do not speak about the haters out of the belief that out of their supposed little evil will come the greater good of Miley being wholesome again. They seem to excuse the apparent little evils of haters, even the malicious bloggers on YouTube along with other places and people, if they believe the supposed greater good of Miley embracing the good girl image she had is served.
The morality police take a look at the Rocker girl Miley wants to be and they most likely see a girl with no morals, no ethics and no moral compass to guide her actions and decisions. They also most likely see a girl with no regard for the consequences of her actions and parties without restraint. As opposed to the wholesome girl who seems to have plenty of morals, plenty of ethics, comes with a moral compass to guide her actions, and has regard-and forsight-into the consequences of her actions. Not to mention shows restraint when partying and wholesome ideals-whether Miley likes it or not.
To some that may be described as a 'cookie cutter image' but to the morality police that is what they may regard as a 'good person.' And Billy Ray and Tish's role? Apparently they are supposed to keep her that way.
There are two problems with that logic. The malicious haters have also gone after Miley's 10 year old sister Noah. Up to the point where they are calling her 'skank'. And another reason, Miley is disgusted with people that are naturally okay with being hateful. Makes me wonder how she feels about people who look the other way in regards to hate. In other words, the 'greater good ' of the morality police, and Miley's 'greater good' may be two different things.
The trick is determining just what that 'greater good' is?
For the morality police it is Miley going back to the 'good girl' image and staying that way. In reponse to Miley's comment of "If you don't like what I do then change the channel" they may respond with "We want to watch wholesome family entertainment, and that's what we want...out of you." They want to watch the 'old Miley'. The 'new' Miley can go to 'new' places. Places they may never go, but that doesn't mean the media won't follow. And if they report on it the outrage and hating starts up again.
But perhaps Miley may see things from a different perspective. She may believe that one may look like a 'good' person, and act like a good person. But does that actually make a good person? Based on that logic she may see the haters, and the morality police excusing it, and wonder if they are really 'good' people. Especially if excusing the haters gets to the point where they are not solving a problem, but becoming part of it. By empowering, and providing material for haters so that the supposed 'good intentions' become nothing more than hater fodder.
Much like the time traveller that seeks to change history, yet doesn't change anything. They only become a part of events. So by Miley's probable logic her conclusion, and message to the morality police, could well be this:
"I only sought the best intentions with my 'art' and entertainment. I didn't cause any scandal and controversey with my actions. You did it yourselves!"
Mind you all this is only a supposed quote. Maybe it's true, and maybe it's not. And maybe Miley would say this, and maybe she wouldn't. But Miley has mentioned how she doesn't like haters. So in forcing her to be something she's not, and looking the other way in regards to haters, have the morality police offended HER sense of morality?
In short, the morality police's 'evil' may be Miley's 'good'. And vice versa.
5.4 Is this how the media operates?
I look at the supposed 'morality police' and the media, and I wonder if they are not turning into 'Big Brother' from 1984. All so they can keep an eye out for 'thoughtcrimes' for reasons of their own. Or maybe they take a look at things from another perspective. A perspective found on 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' and the character of Geordi LaForge.
In one episode Captain Picard is allowed to see what Geordi sees through his VISOR. An image that allows him to see, yet see differently than other people. In some cases 'more', as he can see different frequencies and wavelengths, but at times Geordi finds that 'More isn't better'. When Geordi goes past Commander Riker as he leads an away mission Picard asks 'who that was'. Geordi explains and Picard asks how can he make out who's who and what's what. Geordi gives his answer.
"I get all the information simultaneously. I select what I want and disregard the rest."
It kind of makes me wonder if that's how haters, the outraged, and the media operate. A question only they can answer.
And I think the answer can be based on more than just a two second dip and a ride the rest of the way.
I think I'm at the point here in listing scandals where the quote by Gilda Radner says it best. "It's always something."
And perhaps Miley is at that point too.
No comments:
Post a Comment